Nov 2020
.jpg)
.jpg)
Islam and Terrorism or Islam
versus the West Connotation
By Dr Baba J Adamu
l
Contact
l
If contemporary terrorism is to be
accurately and thoroughly understood clinically and
impartially, it is necessary at the outset to dispel one
current political and religious myth: Islamic
fundamentalism in the context of terrorism is a
misnomer, since a true Muslim who adheres to the
fundamental tenets of Islam must view terrorism as a
serious crime and a blasphemy. Islam not only forbids
acts of terrorism such as the killing of women, children
and unarmed or surrendered combatants but also forbids
the destruction of public and private properties,
buildings, even the felling of a tree if it has a single
green leaf on it is forbidden. Over one hundred thousand
victims of terrorism in Algeria, Nigeria and across
Africa, the Middle East were Muslims, and several
hundred thousand Muslim police officers and soldiers,
from all over the world, are directly engaged in
fighting terrorism and have taken substantial casualties
in doing so. Terrorism today can be attributed neither
to the adherents to any single religion, but that a
significant number of the more outrageous terrorist acts
may be attributed to a small number of terrorists, who
are entirely divorced from their religion, who distort
it, and use it as a convenient cover to try to
legitimize their actions in the popular minds.
Terrorists Perceived as Religious
Fanatics or Jihadists:
In recent times, the popular image of a terrorist group
operating according to a specific ideological agenda and
motivated by political or the desire for ethnic or
national liberation dominated the understanding of
terrorism. Today, the terrorist is largely perceived as
sometimes a religious fanatic (see 4.1 - Goals and
Motivations of Terrorists), who sets off bombs causing
loss of life and great destruction in civilian
population centers. While still true of some terrorist
organizations, this image is no longer universally
valid. Religion is a factor that causes increased
resentment between political protagonists, even if it is
not obvious.
The early association of religion with
terrorism is perhaps the spectacular failures of Guy
Fawkes' religiously inspired attempt to assassinate King
James I and both Houses of Parliament in England. Today,
most of those labelled "terrorists" rarely identify
themselves as such, and typically use other euphemistic
terms or terms specific to their situation, such as
separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary,
vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel,
mujaheddin, fedayeen, jihadist or any similar-meaning
word in other languages. The concept of Islam and
terrorism certainly requires clarification. It is
important though to note a new turning point in the
religion of Islam and terrorism. In 1998 al-Qaeda
network, a terrorist organization was formed with a base
in Afghanistan with Osama bin Laden as the leader who
confessed to being the main architect behind the
terrorist events of 11th September 2001 and several
other major terrorist acts.
However, in the circumstances of the
bombing of the US World Trade Centre, the US Embassy
bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, the terrorist
acts of 11th September 2001 and many other terrorist
acts in the world, ranging back several decades, in
which some Muslims have been indicted or convicted
reflect two facts: Firstly, that some terrorist
acts are committed by persons who incidentally happen to
be Muslims but their religion is not relevant to the
terrorist act. Secondly, some Muslims commit
terrorist acts, misusing, distorting and projecting the
name of Islam. In both cases, the terrorists have an
ulterior or a political motive and only use religion or
other reason as a mere tool to justify their acts.
However, this differentiation is not always appreciated
by some sectors of the media who tend to equate all
terrorism by Muslims as so-called fundamentalist Islam
and under the banner of Jihad (holy struggle or war).
This is entirely inaccurate. Yet other media sources
automatically attribute Islam to any terrorists who
happen to be ethnic Arabs or of Middle Eastern origin; a
result of a widespread misconception that all Arabs are
Muslims.
This is, however, incorrect as national
and ethnic Arab populations include Muslims, Jews and
Christians among their numbers. A large number of
Israeli Jews are ethnic Arabs. Other related widespread
misconceptions are that Iranians or Persians are also
Arabs, which is incorrect and that anti-Semitism is
hatred of Jews, when in fact it is hatred for the many
different Semitic races, including Jews and Arabs. One
of the results of these misconceptions has been to
wrongly simplify some conflicts and boil them down to
facile slogans such as Islam versus the West, and Islam
equals Jihad, which is totally and equivocally wrong.
It should further be noted that the word
often incorrectly attached to Islamic terrorism is Jihad
(Arabic - from Jihad / Jihada
- to make
an effort or struggle). The word means, by translation
and theological tradition, a holy struggle, especially
spiritual, against evil, injustice or personal
imperfection. It may be fulfilled in four ways; by using
the heart, tongue, hand or sword. In contemporary use,
except by terrorists, it denotes an effort against
something either personally negative or detracting from
the common social good, and is used mostly as a last
resort. There are many such Jihads. For example,
A Jihad on a litter to clean up an area, or a Jihad
on one’s self when encountering difficulties
achieving a personal goal, such as studying. In simple
terms, it can be considered as a self-motivating effort
to do some good, underpinned by prayer. Misunderstanding
or misuse of the word Jihad by sections of the media is
not confined to the media. Several umbrella
organizations, religious clerics and spiritual leaders,
based in the Middle East, Western Asia, and Africa; and
in and around the Indian subcontinent constantly misuse
the banners of Islam and Jihad to legitimize
terrorist actions. This is especially so concerning the
Middle East dispute, continuing since the 1948 war, or
in the Jammu & Kashmir dispute, since 1947. In reality,
some terrorists belong, by birth, to all of the major
religions of the world. Many carry out terrorist acts
without any overt or covert religious motive or
consciousness. Some carry out terrorist acts and justify
them by twisting their respective religious doctrines,
while others conceal religious intolerance with other
motives like cultures, ethnicity or marginalization. A
few of these terrorists and their religious clerics have
persuaded themselves that God has conferred upon them,
the right to slaughter, punish and reward others, on a
religious basis, as they see fit. Like in the case of
the “Maitatsine” religious violence in the ancient city
of Kano state and Maiduguri, Jos and Kaduna cities in
Nigeria during the 80s, killing 4,177 people (official
figure) with millions of naira worth of properties
destroyed.
This ‘punishment’ has been shown to
include the ruthless and savage slaughtering of innocent
men, women and children. Similarly, the reprisal attack
by the Boko Haram sect to cause panic and confusion
among the residents and act against the
government and its security agents in the Nigerian
cities of Borno, Maiduguri and the neighbouring towns of
Damaturu, the Yobe State in 2009; or the al-Qaeda and
ISIS acts of terrorism worldwide. Rational minds must,
without sentiments realize that the vast majority of adherents to the major faiths in the world are
peaceful and law-abiding citizens who follow religious doctrines that condemn terrorism; their
inability to suppress terrorism and belonging to the
same religious group does not make them terrorists.
To persistently expound and associate
terrorism as a confederation with one or more of the
major world religions is an exercise in disinformation,
perhaps for political reasons. Its results, however, are
that it helps foment religious hatred and is
counter-productive to understanding and suppressing
terrorism. In the Middle East conflict, there are
several terrorist groups, who happen to be comprised of
Muslims that oppose Israel (Zionism). Doubtless,
religious enmity exists to a degree, on a personal
basis, amongst some members on all sides of the dispute,
as an aggravating factor. However, the formal and stated
standing points of the Middle East governments are that:
The Israeli government does not discriminate on
religious grounds; this is a fact verified by the many
Muslim and Christian Israelis living freely within their
populations. In support of this fact, there were from
1985 until 1999, up to 10,000 Christians (mainly) and
Muslims fighting in their surrogate militia, the South
Lebanese Army or SLA. The Arabic countries surrounding
Israel do not discriminate on religious grounds; this is
a fact verified by the many Jewish and Christian
citizens freely living within their populations.
Furthermore, their openly stated standpoint is that they
do not oppose Jews, only Zionists (most of whom they
consider as political extremists who coincidentally
happen to be Jewish, and some few, Christian).
The International Islamic Front to Fight Jews and
Crusaders, like the closely related al-Qaeda network, is
a landmark departure from other Middle East groups of
Christian, Jewish or Muslim terrorists. This group is
fanatical.
Another misconception is something all
terrorist attacks have in common, an act perpetrated for
a political purpose. Terrorism is a political tactic,
not unlike letter writing or protesting, that is used by
activists when they believe no other means will affect
the kind of change they desire. The change is desired so
badly that failure is seen as a worse outcome than the
deaths of civilians. This is often where the
interrelationship between terrorism and religion occurs.
When a political struggle is integrated into the
framework of a religious or "cosmic" struggle, such as
over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy sites
such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political
goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual
failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than
their death or the deaths of innocent civilians. To
further clarify that some proportion placed on the issue
of Muslims and non-Muslims committing terrorism.
Islamic Radicalization:
The majority of Islamic extremists act
under quasi-Islamic slogans, specifically, that is why
there is the need to intensify religious education. More
work is needed to intensify religious education and work
with religious leaders to promote a peaceful and correct
understanding of Islam. Governments must take several
initiatives like introducing courses on the history of
religions, Islam and the culture of tolerance into
school curriculum; and expand Islamic studies in
universities and tertiary schools, while efforts should
be made to develop counter-narratives for students and
increase engagement with faith communities or projects
on inter - or intra-religious dialogue, most especially
to address the issue of indoctrination and
radicalization. Also, tackling this kind of
radicalization cannot be solved through military
solutions: it requires measures to increase the literacy
of the population especially youths and their online
resources; create jobs and socially build resiliency to
recruitment, to take people out of social exclusion,
brainwashing and isolation.
In building resilience to recruitment,
the government needs to enhance the role of community
leaders, civil society groups, religious leaders, and
families to build resilience against violent extremism;
increasing the level of education and employment and
correlate them together; while enhancing the role of
local government authorities and increasing the
effectiveness of states to offer social intervention,
protection and opportunities. The government must also
recognize the positive influence of religion and
supporting traditional and cultural leaders play and
development of sport and education programs to promote
national values among young people, promote small
businesses and entrepreneurship, organizing job fairs
etc. while providing support to economic development and
job creation, livelihoods enhancement, public service
provisions, good governance and peacebuilding from
below; and rule of law, etc. All these fall within the
sustainable development goals of the UN and non-security
social sectors.
Every country wants to get rid of the
scourge of terrorism, and the prevention of
radicalization is top on the agenda. But if some
individuals or groups who were either brainwashed,
recruited or were about to be radicalized suddenly
realized that the direction they were going was not good
and they wanted to repent, the authorities could give
them amnesty, design adequate interventions and put them
into it. The interventions should include some sort of
rehabilitation as a better option to tackle down the
scourge, following the ideology of dialogue, peace and
understanding. Dialogue is essential because it would
look at why and how promoting good governance, human
rights (HR) and rule of law could help prevent
grievances, which in turn could lead to positive
engagement with the citizens; and also with the violent
extremist groups. In other words, violating human rights
while conducting counter-terrorism (CT) could lead to
more insecurities. States should protect everyone within
their jurisdiction against terrorist acts, and they
should do so in compliance with international human
rights law.
Anti-terrorism measures that fail to
respect human rights and compassion are
counter-productive, not least because a lack of respect
for human rights constitutes in many ways a condition
conducive to terrorism. CT measures that fail to respect
HR play into the hands of terrorists and terrorist
recruiters who seek to undermine security, social
cohesion and human rights. At the same time, human
rights-based CT measures can increase operational
effectiveness. This understanding is at the core of the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)’s
comprehensive concept of security and it is enshrined in
pillar 4 of the United Nations (UN) Global
counter-terrorism (CT) Strategy. In this case, right at
the unset, it is therefore important to understand
individual motivations for surrendering, as well as
gender roles to design adequate interventions. Besides,
it is much better to understand women’s roles and
applying a gender approach to the prevention of violent
extremism.
UN Plan of Action to Prevent Violent
Extremism:
In the 2015 Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism,
the UN Secretary-General encouraged Member States to
develop National Action Plans (NAPs), which set
“priorities for addressing the local drivers of violent
extremism and [complement] national counter-terrorism CT
strategies where they already exist”. The preparation of
Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) Action plans are not
a substitution for CT Strategies, but complementary.
Prevention measures related to the regulation of
conflicts, dialogues, addressing socio-economic
grievances, promoting human rights in the fight against
terrorism are all duly recognized in Pillars 1 and 4 of
the comprehensive UN CT Strategy and its regional Joint
Plan of Action (JPoA) adopted in Central Asia. PVE plans
to target the process of radicalization and recognize
its roots and manifestations.
To this end, the UN has taken forward an
action plan about preventing violent extremism,
formalized towards the end of 2015. It supports the need
to understand both structural and individual factors
associated with patterns of radicalization. Vulnerable
individuals facing a lack of opportunity, in the global
north and the global south, without forms of guidance,
governance or leadership from their communities or the
state, may turn to alternative political or ideological
manifestations of resistance, that may or may not lead
to violent extremism. In particular, in the global
south, issues of development, corruption, tribalism and
militarism have left behind youth populations suffering
low education and high unemployment rates. This leads to
a deep sense of hopelessness and frustration, which
encourages some to seek various forms of
self-realization and self-actualization based on
self-annihilation. The latter also affects certain
Muslim minority groups in different parts of Western
Europe, but also far-right groups. Both camps are angry
and frustrated at their ‘left behind’ status, where
traditional forms of masculinity are also being
challenged, leading to anomie, alienation and
ultimately, in the case of Muslim minority groups, angry
young men and women who choose (through a lack of
choice) to adhere to a limited understanding of certain
interpretations of the scriptures.
Of far-right groups, theirs is a reaction
to the impact of globalization on eroding national
identities. It stems from the fear of differences
associated with policies of multiculturalism, now been
debunked by many, as well as the revulsion of the other,
whether as a result of immigration or because of
existing minority groups. This fear continues to linger
in regards to various cultural forms of expression that
impact on the lived experience. It also leads to
accusations of ‘self-ghettoization’ concerning Muslim
minorities. Preventing violent extremism projects are
aimed at stopping individuals from taking a path towards
extremism and violence, whereas the notion of countering
violent extremism focuses on pushing back about
individuals who have already made a significant way down
the road of extremism and violence.
There are several reasons why the
preparation of a PVE NAP can be beneficial: It provides
an opportunity to reflect critically on the
effectiveness of past approaches and interventions; It
helps define the nature of the threat, as well as aims,
objectives, targets and priorities; It allocates roles
and responsibilities and holds agencies accountable; It
also lays the foundation for a common understanding and
more systematic dialogue with donors. Successful PVE
Plans include both security and non-security components
of governments (Whole of Government) as well as provide
dialogue and shared responsibilities, not just among
government agencies but also in partnership with civil
society, private sector, academia etc. (Whole of
Society). As such, they recognize women, youth and
communities not just as vulnerable subjects but also as
actors of change. The involvement of civil society
organizations, the private sector and academia has
proven beneficial for a variety of reasons: It widens
ownership, hence improving the effectiveness of the
policies and strategies by sharing responsibility for
implementation and deflating resistance to top-down
strategies. Consultations with and involvement of civil
society organizations (CSOs) also help create mechanisms
to understand the impact of policies while tapping into
the knowledge of local contexts, drivers, and evolving
trends. CSOs have expertise and experiences, innovation
and flexibility that can help recognize and tackle
radicalization to violent extremism in communities.
An analysis of global experiences shows
that good National Action Plans (NAPs) are those that:
-
Have been created based on an
analysis of the situation, one that has identified
threats and drivers of radicalization and
recruitment to violent extremism;
-
Build on existing sectoral programs
and strategies, creating bridges between security
and non-security strategies (such as Sustainable
Development, gender equality, youth programs,
employment, sustainable development goals (SDGs),
etc.);
-
Set priorities for C/PVE activities
and concrete, measurable goals;
-
Clarify roles, responsibilities and
tasks of all implementing partners;
-
Make clear links between women’s
empowerment, participation and prevention of
radicalization, indoctrination;
-
Are allocated adequate budget for
implementation, both from government budget and
donor support;
-
Include measurable indicators for
monitoring and evaluation;
-
Are accompanied by a comprehensive
communication strategy to raise public awareness;
-
Are regularly monitored, including
with the help of civil society and academia, and are
adjusted based on the results.
Some several risks and challenges need to
be taken into account in the preparation and especially
the implementation of NAPs. The pressure to produce them
could lead to a tendency to skip the consultation
process. CSOs and other partners may not have enough
capacity to impact the agenda. Monitoring and Evaluation
(M&E) indicators are often underdeveloped: they are
either too broad or too precise, making it difficult to
gather evidence on the effectiveness of programs.
Another important problem is that of lack of budgeting
for implementation: many NAPs rely too much on donor
funding because they include non-security, ‘soft’
interventions and do not benefit from separate budgets
from the State. In the final analysis, the biggest
challenge remains that of implementation: NAPs can be
adopted with broad consultation and look good on paper,
but little action is taken for implementation, showing
little commitment to the prevention agenda.
Therefore, the challenges going forward
relate to a better understanding of what works in
different contexts and how we can best utilize this
knowledge to improve practice in the areas of interest
and beyond. There is also the question of the wider
political context in which this policy and community
development projects are carried out, such that there
are dramatically shifting terrain at a geopolitical
level, which potentially creates more challenges than
opportunities, in the current period. While preventing
and countering violent extremism projects can go a long
way to assisting vulnerable individuals and communities,
they do not operate in a vacuum. These problems are not
going to go away overnight. Successful projects need to
be highlighted as best practice for other regions and
countries to benefit from. Sharing this is not as easy
as it would seem as every NGO and CSO is immersed in
many areas of work, combined with all the resource
allocation challenges that come with institutions, big
or small, constantly searching to sustain their
activities in a charged climate.
Anti-Muslim racism in a Post-Race State:
Racism and its associated discriminations
are not individual biases neither are the practices of
past eras. Racism is varied, wide-reaching, normative
and thriving in contemporary society. Despite their
differences, both critical race theory and Postcolonial
theory have played an important role in advancing social
scientific understanding of how “race” and racism are
constructed and used to sustain a hierarchy of social
order and associated practices of racial oppression.
Critical race theorists, such as Derek Bell and Kimberle
Crenshaw, and earlier scholars aligned with the
perspective, Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth and
W.E.B. Du Bois suggested that society is full of
anti-black races, which operate at all levels of
society. These are not only found in individual minds
but social relationships and structural practices. There
is therefore a more systematic operation of racism that
is being delivered through social, economic and
political means. This is still a valid point that is
often ignored when examining instances of race-hate in
contemporary society.
Besides, Postcolonial theorists like Said
and Fanon, have sought to understand the cultural legacy
of colonialism and imperialism, especially for those
native populations who were subjected to “civilizing”
control measures and economic exploitation. They
postulated that “the West” had for centuries defined
itself through portraying the Eastern “Orient” as its
polar opposite. In the analysis of material produced in
the West during the colonial period, Said found
disturbing and fantastical geography of West vs. East,
one in which the West’s depiction of itself as
“civilized” and “advanced” depended on the degradation
of Asian and Middle Eastern cultures as “barbaric” and
“backwards.”. It is argued that the West vs. East
fantastical re-presentation continues to be used to
control and regulate “brown bodies (colour people)”
though, a very specific way in which this is done in the
post-race era.
The claim that the world is now living in
post-race times attempts to devoid claims of race-making
and racism. It is a claim that is based on the view that
society has progressed so far with race equality, that
specific considerations of racialized discrimination are
now obsolete. To support this claim, progress in a
variety of areas were highlighted, with the ultimate
illustration being the inauguration of Barack Hussein
Obama as the President of the United States of America
in 2009. Ironically, the country that in recent years
has witnessed an increase in the number of black deaths
at the hands of the police and others claiming to
undertake “policing” work, for example, Michael Brown,
Davis “Caine” Rogers, Terence Crutcher, and Trayvon
Martin, to name a few, with the death of the last
triggering the Black Lives Matter movement (Black Lives
Matter, 2012). Trayvon Martin was a 17-year-old African
American who was fatally shot by George Zimmerman, an
armed neighbourhood watch volunteer, in Sanford, Florida
in February 2012.
Zimmerman was later acquitted of
manslaughter and second-degree murder, although
allegations were rife of him being motivated by racism
and having racially profiled Martin. Barack Obama
inadvertently added to this suggestion in his comment to
reporters following the shooting: “When I think about
this boy, I think about my kids, and I think every
parent in America should be able to understand why we
must investigate every aspect of this … If I had a son,
he would look like Trayvon.” (President Obama, cited in
The Guardian, 2012). The Martin case and others like it
challenges the idea of a non-racially biased state. It
demonstrates that structural racism remains a key
feature of US societies, and that race not only matters
but for many, it remains a matter of life and death as
in the case of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.
On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a
46-year-old black man, was killed in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, while being arrested for allegedly using a
counterfeit bill. He died after Derek Chauvin, a white
police officer with the Minneapolis Police Department,
knelt on Floyd's neck for about nine and a half minutes
after he was already handcuffed and lying face down. The
incident sparked international protests against racism
and police brutality – but in the wake of this mass call
for change, police are still killing Black men and women
at disproportionate rates in the USA. Breonna Taylor, a
26-year-old African-American woman, was fatally shot in
her Louisville, Kentucky apartment on March 13, 2020,
when police officers Jonathan Mattingly, Brett Hankison,
and Myles Cosgrove of the Louisville Metro Police
Department (LMPD) forced entry into the apartment as
part of an investigation into drug dealing operations.
Using databases from Mapping Police Violence and the
Washington Post, CBS News has compiled a list of 164
Black men and women who were killed by police from
January 1 to August 31, 2020. Many of the cases remain
under investigation. This data is based on reported and
verified cases and does not necessarily account for all
incidents in which a person was killed by police. But
based on the known cases, police have killed at least
one Black person every week since January 1, and only
two states - Rhode Island and Vermont - have reported no
killings by police so far in 2020. In 2019, 259 Black
people were killed by police in the United States. This
compares to 182 Hispanics, 13 Native Americans, and 406
White people. The rate of police shootings of Black
Americans is much higher than any other ethnicity, at 30
per million people. This rate stands at 23 per million
for Hispanics and 12 per million for Whites.
Therefore, the claim to a post-race state
is not only incorrect, but it is more damaging for black
populations, who are still at greater risk of
discriminatory practices. It is argued in other work of
Patel, that society not only remains marked out by
racialized processes but claims to a post-race state
have allowed racially biased practices to
unapologetically and unashamedly thrive. It does this by
first presenting discrimination as something emerging
from naturally occurring segregation practices.
Also, occurring in the post-race state is
the increased categorization, surveillance and control
of some populations using the claim of “a measured
response” to increased security concerns. This claim
suggests that although there may be a heavier focus on
members of the Muslim population, this is proportionate
to the threat and that aside, this level of response
does not even constitute actual racism, given that
Muslims are not perceived to be a “race”. Here, there
emerges a denial of racism by making distinctions
between Islamophobia and racism and misinterpreting the
category of the latter. Islamophobia is considered to be
a fear of the religion of Islam (ideas and practices),
rather than hostility towards a racial group per se
(racism). And, given that Muslims are not considered to
be a group defined by race, the perception is that they
cannot experience racism. As Sayyid (2008: 1) writes:
“The figure of the Muslim is vital for this racism
without racists. Because Muslims are not a race, any
forms of discrimination and violence disproportionately
directed at them is thinkable and doable. Because
Muslims are not a race the systemic violations directed
against them cannot be racially motivated”. A by-product
then of the “measured response” claim is the suggestion
that it is somehow acceptable to be Islamophobic on the
basis that their fear of religion is genuine, logical
and non-racial. This not only deflects accusations of
racism but also situates Islamophobes in a more
favourable position.
To overcome this conceptual flaw, the
term “anti-Muslim racism” is used to describe a type of
hostility towards Muslims that uses cultural racism,
which is a particular type of discrimination against all
those perceived to be Muslim that is in itself
determined by ideas about physical appearance (the
wearing of the hijab or burqa), religious custom (prayer
or observation of Ramadan), and biological features
(brown skin), which result in a sense of post-colonial
superiority over all those considered to be Muslim. The
term “anti-Muslim racism” emphasizes that racism is not
exclusively biologically determined, but that it is
something which is a socio-politically produced
experience as postulated by (Sayyid and Vakil, 2010;
Tyrer, 2013). Cultural racisms such as anti-Muslim
racism reproduce the idea that there is a hierarchy of
cultures, which in Western society means that “our”
Western culture is superior to “their” Islamic one. This
was most recently illustrated with the massive increase
in reports of anti-Muslim racism following Britain’s
“Brexit” vote in 2016. From the very start, the “leave”
campaign relied heavily on a convergence of
anti-immigrant xenophobia and anti-Muslim racism
(despite the latter not having a logical relation to EU
membership). The first simultaneously drew on and
legitimated the latter. Within the “socially fabricated
distinctions between Europeanness and non-Europeanness”
(Sayyid, 2008: 1) lives the persistent presence of the
postcolonial fantasy!
In drawing on historical feelings of
disgust towards Muslim populations, along with ideas
about failed multiculturalism, a lack of community
cohesion, and the need for tighter border controls and
national security (prevention of terrorist activity),
nations have used “a narrative which connects race with
culture with multiculturalism with national identity
with community cohesion with wider social relations”
around crime and security. This “logic” has resulted in
attempts to further control brown bodies (coloured
people) at every possible level, including the wearing
of clothing often associated with Muslims. For instance,
in 2011, France banned the wearing of the Islamic veil
in public places, Quebec, in Canada did the same. In
France, it is punishable with fines of up to 150 Euros,
the 2011 ban added to the 2004 ban on hijabs in France’s
state schools. Later, in 2016, several French towns
banned the wearing of a “burkini” (the term used in the
media to refer to a swimsuit that covers most of the
body and which is mostly worn by Muslim women).
Reasons for the ban cited health
concerns, security issues, assimilation agendas, as well
as gender equality issues. Unsurprisingly, there has
been a rise in the number of reported racist attacks,
which have specifically used visual markers of
Muslim-ness as a focus of hate, for example, bearded men
being attacked and (women especially) having clothing
forcibly removed or torn off (Allen, 2004; Mythen and
Khan, 2009; Carr, 2014), although ironically the wearing
of a Muslim-typed bear has become world fashion. More
recently, in March 2017, the European Court of Justice
ruled that companies could ban its staff from wearing
visible religious symbols whilst at work. Although the
ruling covered the wearing of symbols of any religion,
it was openly welcomed by those of the right of the
political spectrum who had been pre-occupied with women
wearing Islamic headscarves in the workplace (The
Guardian, 2017). In the post-race state, visual markers
(such as items of customary dress) are seen as active
choices, and this view allows for victimization blame to
be firmly laid at the feet of Muslims, with the premise
that they are responsible for actively choosing to wear
markers of difference and in doing so reject and offend
mainstream society. In other words, they are choosing to
remain uncivilized.
Another consequence of this logic is the
rise of far-right groups “from ‘street’ through
‘quasi-legitimate’ to ‘mainstream’ who have found a
greater platform from which to publicize their views,
messages and arguments” (Allen, 2004: 8). Indeed,
several newer emerging far-right groups have
specifically focused on the “Muslim threat”, for
example, Pegida (translated from German: Patriotic
Europeans against the Islamization of the West). The
visuality of Muslim-ness has now come to be presented as
incompatible and in contrast with the “norms” of Western
society (Allen, 2004: 12); here taken to mean civilized
society. Furthermore, the perception of Muslims as
hostile and resistant to change further presents them as
the enemy within who pose a threat of terrorism and to
the western liberal way of life. This has allowed for
debates about counter-terrorism (CT), immigration and
citizenship to become blurred, with a policy on one
being used to support the other. It has also allowed for
a revised narrative of the “white man’s burden” which
presents such attempts to control brown bodies as “a
humanitarian intervention, which only wants to spread
democracy, to domesticate unruly Muslims (Sayyid, 2008:
1).
Criminalizing Muslims through
Counter-Terror Measures:
For clarity, it is important to recognize
the fact that in recent years there have been many
terrible terrorist incidents around the world which have
been carried out by groups and individuals declaring
themselves to be acting in the name of Islam, for
instance, the attacks in America in 2001, on London’s
public transport system in 2005, the Bali bombing in
2002, Madrid train bombings in 2004, Charlie Hebdo in
2015, and, the Tunisian beach attack in 2015; and all
other atrocities and terrorist acts committed by a small
number of extremist in the name of Islam, which has been
argued that their acts do not represent the views of
millions of Muslims across the globe. What is, however,
illustrated here is the use of anti-Muslim racism to
further amplify the situation and construct all or the
majority of Muslims as potential terrorists.
Counter-terrorism measures have been
criticized for their over-focus on all Muslims, and for
their simplistic, generic and one-dimensional notions of
Islam (Kundnani, 2009; Pantazis and Pemberton, 2009;
Bonino, 2013; Patel, 2017). This has presented the
nonsensical view that extremism and radicalization are
inherent within Muslim culture. It is a logic that
presents all Muslims as extremists, rather than
problematizing the extremist mindset of individuals
themselves. Anti-Muslim racism has seen the state and
its allied services construct Muslims through a language
of disobedience, deviance and criminality, which is in
itself considered to be built on anti-Western hostility
and history of Orientalism (Said, 1979). Within the “war
on terror” context, this means that there is an easy
acceptance in lay society of “the dangerous brown man”,
an adaptation of earlier racist mythologies around the
“dangerous black man”, which is used to both represent
and sustain racialized anxieties. Rooted in these
anxieties is the idea that Muslims are uncivil, inferior
and inhumane. This logic not only helps to justify their
unequal treatment in society but also helps to ensure
that accusations of abuse and torture by the state are
viewed with relatively little sympathy. As Kundnani
(2007: 126) notes, “to be a “Muslim” in the “war on
terror” is to belong to a group with common origins, a
shared culture and a monolithic identity that can be
held collectively responsible for terrorism, segregation
and the failure of multiculturalism”. Muslims are not
just seen to be deviant or even criminal, but they are
considered to be the worse type of criminal, the
fundamentalist terrorist, different from comparatively
humanistic terrorists of yester-year. The “Islamic
terrorist” indiscriminately targets all
Western-civilians, including it most vulnerable and
precious: women and children, little wonder why US
President Donald Trump immediately after his
inauguration instituted the Muslim Ban to the united
states.
Executive Order 13769, titled Protecting
the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United
States, politically labelled as a Muslim Ban by
detractors or a travel ban by supporters, was an
executive order by United States President Donald Trump.
Except for the extent to which it was blocked by various
courts, it was in effect from January 27, 2017, until
March 6, 2017, when it was superseded by Executive Order
13780. Executive Order 13769 lowered the number of
refugees to be admitted into the United States in 2017
to 50,000, suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program
(USRAP) for 120 days, suspended the entry of Syrian
refugees indefinitely, directed some cabinet secretaries
to suspend entry of those whose countries do not meet
adjudication standards under U.S. immigration law for 90
days, and included exceptions on a case-by-case basis.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) lists these
countries as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria,
and Yemen. More than 700 travellers were detained, and
up to 60,000 visas were "provisionally revoked"
Underpinned by older (immigration)
concerns of “civilizing” Muslim populations, newer
counter-terrorism measures have allowed for a
wider-reaching remit of control of Muslims. For
instance, in the United Kingdom, there was the extending
of the 2000 Terrorism Act (Home Office, 2000), which
actively designated Muslims as dangerous, suspect and in
need of control (Pantazis and Pemberton, 2009: 652). The
2000 Act criminalized a range of activities associated
with several proscribed organizations, which included
supporting or attending meetings of said organizations.
Subsequent amendments to the 2000 Act increased the
number of proscribed organizations, with most newly
added organizations being associated with countries
where Islam is the main faith. There was also an
extension of stop and search powers under sections 44
and 45, allowing for practice to be undertaken without
the need for reasonable suspicion. Unlike the 1984
Police and Criminal Evidence Act (Home Office, 1984),
the police officer did not need to have “reasonable
suspicion” for the stop and search. The Act was later
followed by the anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act
2001 (Home Office, 2001); the Prevention of Terrorism
Act 2005 (Home Office, 2005); the Terrorism Act 2006
(Home Office, 2006); the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008
(Home Office, 2008); and, the Counter-Terrorism and
Security Act 2015 (Home Office, 2015a). In combination,
these Acts have over-criminalized Muslim populations,
and have made “legal” their enhanced status as sources
of risk and consequently their vulnerability to
victimization by the state, especially about police stop
and search practices.
However, counter-terror measures allow
for the criminalization of Muslims to occur more widely
and at a much earlier age. For instance, consider the
UK’s CONTEST strategy (Home Office, 2011). Launched in
2003, and since revised, CONTEST claims to work with
“mainstream Islam” to “undermine extremist ideologies,
identify and support individuals who are vulnerable to
recruitment, increase the capacity of communities to
resist violent extremists, and understand real and
perceived grievances” This civilizing narrative draws on
anti-Muslim racism to perpetuate the idea of Muslims as
a “suspect” community, even in these post-race times!
For instance, in theory, CONTEST is directed at tackling
all forms of radicalization and extremism, including
far-right activity, but in practice, it has heavily
over-focused on the Muslim population (Coppock and
McGovern, 2014: 245). The problem here is that there is
an over-emphasis on national and cultural supremacy,
which brings with it the danger of a biased and
inaccurate education. The teaching of “values” is not
the point of contention; rather it is the packaging of
“democracy, rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual
respect and tolerance” as being essentially Western
values. Besides, it reinforces the perception of young
Muslims being susceptible to extremism, which
counter-terror approaches then equate with
susceptibility to radicalization and terrorist activity,
meaning that young Muslims are “constituted as
“vulnerable” in politically powerful ways, as the
“would-be terrorist” (Coppock and McGovern, 2014: 242).
Their “Islamic” and “child” selves are both dangerous
and in need of saving, and they become marked as
“appropriate objects for state intervention and
surveillance” (Coppock and McGovern, 2014: 242).
In combination, these and other
counter-terrorism measures draw on somewhat normalized
notions of the “Islamic terrorist” to justify and gather
support for discriminatory practices. They continue to
construct Muslims as suspicious bodies with criminal
tendencies, in need of increased surveillance, control
and regulation and thus legitimize a pre-emptive,
interventionist and securitizing approach. Any negative
impact that they may have on the Muslim population is
considered to be relatively justified, almost as
collateral damage in comparison to the perceived wider
threat. In this sense, Muslims are not considered worthy
of human rights, they are after all goes the civilizing
logic, rejecting attempts to assimilate and be part of
Western civil society. This logic is not unique or new
to Muslims in post-colonial Britain or the USA, or
Europe for that matter. Recall for instance the use of
this logic in the treatment of other races around the
world, for instance, Australia’s Aborigines, Native
Americans, New Zealand’s Maori, and the African Slaves
transported across the Atlantic. In all these cases,
attempts were made to excuse and justify exploitative
behaviour on the basis that the (exploited) subjects
were naturally positioned, either biologically,
intellectually or in accordance to Providence, as
inferior thus, legitimized, morally at least, that their
control was necessary and good for society as a whole.
Terrorist acts committed by Muslims
misusing a distorted banner of Islam are in
Algeria, Angola, Egypt, France, Kashmir,
Kenya, Nigeria, India, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon,
Pakistan, Philippines, South Africa, Syria, Tanzania,
Turkey, Tunisia, United States, Former Yugoslavia and
several other countries; whereas
Terrorist acts committed by non-Muslims
have been recorded in
Angola, Argentina, Austria, Belgium,
Bolivia, Colombia, Cyprus, Ecuador, El Salvador, France,
Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Greece, Lebanon,
Mexico, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland, Panama,
Papua New Guinea, Peru, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Spain,
Sudan, Sumatra, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, United
States, Former Yugoslavia, Venezuela, and several other
countries.
The Ideology of Peace:
The ideology behind establishing Islamic
rule all over the world is by a handful of people, which
is leading to the present-day violence. These extreme
groups of people have become obsessed with this ideology
and are trying to establish the political rule of Islam,
thinking it to be their ticket to paradise. Having
failed to achieve this objective of establishing Islamic
rule by the peaceful method, they started resorting to
terrorism; the idea being that if they cannot eliminate
the non-Islamic rule, then let them at least
de-stabilize it. But according to the interpretation of
Islam by the teachings in the Qur’an and Hadith,
the Ideology of Peace
as followed by
Prophet Muhammad (WAS) and his early followers, is based
upon peace, compassion and tolerance. Islam means peace
and peace is always desirable for its own sake, and
every other desirable state comes after peace, not along
with it.
Islam teaches one to be tolerant and
achieve peace for its own sake, which opens
opportunities and creates favourable conditions for one
to strive for their best, eventually attaining justice
and other constructive ends with patient and tolerance.
This is the ideology of peace. This ideology of peace,
based on the sources of Islam, can counter the ideology
of violence. The Prophet Muhammad provides a very clear
historical example of this in his method of negotiating
the Hudaybiyya peace treaty. On this occasion, he
brought matters to a successful conclusion by
unilaterally accepting all the conditions of his
opponents. In this peace treaty, the Prophet had not
received justice or his rights.
But what was in effect a 10-year no-war
pact, allowed the Prophet to work uninterruptedly on a
constructive program that would otherwise have been
impossible. Utilizing this peaceful non-political pact,
the Prophet and his companions were able to consolidate
themselves with no need to wage war: they were able to
take control of Makkah peacefully. From this example and
many in the Qur’an, it is clearly understood that there
is no room for violence in Islam.
The ideology of Islam banishes the notion
that there can be anything acceptable about terrorism.
Islam is a completely peaceful religion and so its
method. Because of the importance of peace, the Qur’an
has declared that no aggressive war is permitted in
Islam. Muslims can engage themselves only in a
defensive, not in an offensive war, irrespective of the
circumstances (Qur’an 2:190). The Qur’an also states
‘reconciliation is the best’ (Qur’an 4:128). The Qur’an
has this to say of the mission of the Prophet Muhammad:
"We have not sent you forth but as a mercy to mankind."
(Qur’an 21:107); and the Prophet Muhammad used to
entreat his Lord in his daily prayer:
"O God, You are the source of Peace; from
You is all Peace, and to You returns all Peace. So, make
us live with Peace; and let us enter paradise: the House
of Peace. Blessed be You, our Lord, to whom belongs all
Majesty and Honour!”
It is also clearly written in the Qur’an
2:62:
Surely, those who believe (in the Qur'an), And those
who follow the Jewish (scriptures), And the Christians,
the converts; anyone who (1) believes in God, and (2)
believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous
life, shall have their reward with their Lord: on them
Shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (Qur'an 2:62)
The simple conclusion to draw as to the
causes of terrorism today can be attributed neither to
the adherents to any single ethnicity, religion, poverty
or social class but that a significant number of the
more outrageous terrorist acts may be attributed to a
small number of terrorists, who have an ulterior or a
political motive and use religion or other reason as a
mere tool to justify their acts; and they are entirely
divorced from their enclave: social class, religion,
culture or ethnic background who distort it and use it
as a convenient cover to try to legitimize their actions
in the popular minds. But under sub-measures of the
world counter-terror, the surveillance discourse serves
to control and regulate Muslims' perception of terrorism
and the undertone of Western values and national
security narrative, which continue to normalize and
perpetuate anti-Muslim sentiment and construct Muslims
as “suspect” communities at every possible opportunity.
This ensures that anti-Muslim racism remains a key
feature of contemporary western society, which is
unfortunate. Read more in 2.3 Islam and Terrorism or
Islam versus the West Connotation. It may be
difficult, perhaps impossible, to stop a determined
individual who wants to commit an act of terrorism if
they get through every security check, but some things
can be done to prevent, stop and limit the acts and the
spread of extremist violence and radicalization of young
people; and divert their support.
